Last week’s post began the second principle that influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law, explaining the sinful and delictual dimensions of an offence. Today’s post examines the conflict between the external and internal forums.
As a recap, the second principle states: “There is to be a coordination between the external forum and the internal forum, which is proper to the Church and has been operative for centuries, so as to preclude any conflict between the two.”
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is divided into two: internal and external forums. The internal forum focuses on “questions concerning the welfare of individual Christians and with their relationship with God” The internal forum is further divided into two. The first is the sacramental or penitential forum, wherein one receives absolution in the sacrament of penance. The second is the extra-penitential forum, which concerns all other private needs of the faithful that are resolved privately outside of sacramental confession. The external forum considers matters that concern the public and social good of the Church, stemming from an individual’s outward, observable actions and behaviours.
There is sometimes conflict between the internal and external forums. An example is when one with an occult impediment is ordained a deacon or priest, or a marriage is invalid in the forum of conscience (one or both parties knew of an impediment to the marriage but kept it secret). However, the marriage is binding in the external forum because of the lack of judicial proof to show that the marriage is invalid (cf. Can. 1060). It could also be that a tribunal judged a valid marriage invalid because one of the parties secretly mutilated judicial proofs used to arrive at that moral certainty. Hence, while the marriage has been declared invalid from its inception, it has continuously remained valid.
In each case, the guilty party may have sought sacramental absolution and, of course, has been forgiven. However, the effects of the action remain: the cleric is irregular for the celebration of the sacraments, or the spouse seeking the declaration of nullity puts the other spouse in grave difficulty.
Further explanation on holy orders is necessary.
Canons 1041 and 1042 outline the irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders. Canon 1044 provides for those who are irregular or impeded for the exercise of the orders already received. Canon 1047 §1 states that if an irregularity has been brought to the judicial forum, the dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See alone. Paragraphs two and three outline other irregularities and impediments, occult or public, to the reception of orders reserved to the Apostolic See.
Canon 1048 states: “In the more urgent occult cases, if the Ordinary or, in the case of the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3 and 4, the Penitentiary cannot be approached, and if there is imminent danger of serious harm or loss of reputation, the person who is irregular for the exercise of an order may exercise it. There remains, however, the obligation of his having recourse as soon as possible to the Ordinary or the Penitentiary, without revealing his name, and through a confessor.” Canon 1041 3° is attempted marriage by a cleric, while 4° is wilful homicide or procured abortion.
Canon 1048 shows the coordination between the external and internal forums and how the law helps the journey of holiness and salvation of souls. One with an occult irregularity or impediment may have gone for confession, yet the irregularity or impediment remains. As long as it remains occult, the cleric would still bear the moral burden of an irregularity or impediment, even though the sacraments celebrated are valid. Since stopping the celebration of sacraments will lead to serious harm or loss of reputation, which will affect the Christian community’s journey of holiness, the law provides an option to assist the cleric—recourse to the Ordinary or Apostolic Penitentiary through a confessor who will not reveal his name.
One recalls that the sacramental seal is inviolable. The sacramental seal also makes the confessor incapable of being a witness regarding everything he knows in sacramental confession, even if the penitent has asked that these things be made known (Can. 1550 §2). The direct violation of this is a grave delict reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith. Therefore, the confessor applies for a dispensation without revealing the name. The confessor here should be the canon penitentiary because of his ordinary faculties for related matters (Can. 508 §1).
In his 2015 letter before the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis granted all priests the faculty to absolve, within the jubilee year, the sin of abortion, which previously was reserved in grave cases. Canon 1397 §2 states: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” Hence, while this faculty explicitly concerns the sin of abortion, it raises doubts regarding the delict of abortion and the corresponding excommunication, which bars one from receiving the sacraments, which include confession itself (Can. 1331 §1, 2°). The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts clarified that the pope clearly intended to confer on priests the jurisdiction to remove (absolve) latae sententia excommunication to be able to validly confer the sacrament of confession, and therefore, pardon the sins confessed (Cann. 138; 132 §1, 966).
In his 2016 apostolic letter at the conclusion of the jubilee, Misericordia et misera, Pope Francis extended this faculty. In the pope’s words, “I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion. The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy Year, is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.” (n.12). As Pope Francis says in the apostolic letter, “Nothing of what a repentant sinner places before God’s mercy can be excluded from the embrace of his forgiveness. For this reason, none of us has the right to make forgiveness conditional” (n.2).
The irregularity to orders does not arise from the sinful dimension of abortion but from the delictual dimension. The reason is that sacramental absolution removes all the guilt, and depriving one of a sacrament or privilege even after confession questions the holistic nature of God’s mercy.
Unlike other situations where the faithful are deprived of sacraments or privileges or have their rights restricted because they continue living in an irregular state, abortion is a one-off act, even if done on different occasions. The delict of abortion is an irregularity only to the reception and exercise of orders. Therefore, the option presented above regarding a cleric who has an occult case of abortion remains in place.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
Pingback: online casino real money california